politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
A drone strike against a terrorist group is both legal and not an assassination. They didn't isolate that one guy. He was killed while doing terrorist shit with a terrorist group, and the entire group was killed.
In other words, legal. Don't join Al Qaeda if you don't want to be hit by a drone.
Imperialism isn't "violating the norms of office" any more than it is "shit you personally don't like," and the above is not a violation of the norms of office, but rather something the President was given power to do by Congress, twice by that point.
I'm not sure what you wanted Biden to do here when he accomplished his goal without overstepping the bounds of his office, per the union that asked for help.
I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about his two children. Whom were absolutely not members of Al-Qaeda.
Remember, under Obama, the definition of being a terrorist was that you were male, over 14, and you were killed by the U.S.
Being a civilian in the Afghan/Yemen war was a privilege only women were afforded.
Finally, it wasn't Al-Qaeda. I will excuse this one, because you wouldn't know it based on US reporting unless you specifically interested in the Yemeni conflict. The genocide we assisted in perpetrating in Yemen against the people of Yemen who would not/did not ally themselves, and never would with Al-Qaeda for religious reasons. The US did what it did in Yemen under the auspices of the AUMF. Which has, as the one limiting factor, that force be used against countries with an Al-Qaeda presence. Nevermind that they were the ones we were arming and backing in Syria. Nevermind that they didn't REALLY exist in Yemen, and the few that did were imported by 'us' (Saudi Arabia, not the US), and the houthi did fight quite hard against them, and certainly not in the area this individual was killed. Nevermind that the Yemeni 'Government' that was forced in by Saudi Arabia was not accepted as the legit government of the majority of the Yemeni people (hence the reason for the 'civil war'. We had to say they did to give the assistance that Saudi Arabia was demanding. The Yemeni 'government' was literally of puppet of Saudi Arabia that any sane person wouldn't listen to. They accused everyone of being Al-Qaeda because, as puppets of Saudi Arabia, they had explicit instructions on what to say to allow the US to continue supporting their puppet regime. You won't find this in the wikipedia article, by the by, this actually required some thought, analysis, and paying attention to the situation when it was happening.
And no, it was not approved twice by congress. Unless you are again counting the AUMF. which seems a pretty big stretch. That law wasn't written addressing the assassination of US citizens, does not explicitly state anywhere that it can be used for those purposes. Instead, Obama used the law in a way it was written to do something he wanted to do. I.E. he used powers not explicitly given to him to accomplish his goals. Huh. Imagine if his goals were to help workers.
Give me a definition of imperial that we don't fit then. I'm sure I'll enjoy the internal inconsistencies in the definition you give.
I want Biden to use power to help the people, and not the financier owners of the rail companies that exist to siphon of America's productivity like parasites. Because, frankly, there are far less bounds of the office than you are implying. This appeal to notional bounds is what Democrats always do to justify their feckless helplessness when it comes to helping their constituency.
Fuck, you're the definition of 'Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.'
If you hadn't been wrong almost immediately I may have taken the time to respond to the entire post, but I did catch the end and our conversation is only happening in response to a post in which I showed, with citations, that Biden did use his power to help the people, and that the union in question directly credits him for it.
Anyway here's a page about AQY (AL-Qaeda in Yemen)
https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/al-qaeda-yemen#:~:text=Executive%20Summary%20Al%20Qaeda%20in,the%20Arabian%20Peninsula%20(AQAP).
But then, if you knew things, you wouldn't be dumb enough to think "Lib" is an insult.
Edit: since I already know you won't click the link:
Surely you're not deadnaming AQY by pretending they aren't who they identify as.
If you knew things, you'd know that people of the left also think liberal (not lib) is an insult, coming from a completely different place. Look up the ‘Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.' origin if you actually want to learn something.
You'd also know that every Sunni fundamentalist group during that time period between 1990-2003 had to claim that. You'd also know that those Foreign Nationals were basically all Saudi Arabian, functioning as a first wave to try and claim the territory for Saudi Arabia, because a large chunk of Saudi Arabia was scheduled to be given back to Yemen from a 99 year lease. You'd also know that the Saudi Arabians had, in the early part of that time period just commited a pogrom against the Shia in Najran who were very excited about the prospect of rejoining a Shia majority country. And that the vast majority of the people of Yemen are Shia. You'd also know that the civil war came about specifically because the Saudis took over the government in Sanaa to, at least in part, keep the land and the people of Yemen were extremely unhappy about this.
Fuck man, the Houthi fought against the few groups of AQAP that did still exist harder than the US did.
I did click on that link. It's the same standard bullshit written by people who have never been to Yemen. I also looked at the citations used. That was written by people who have never been there, mostly to retroactively justify Americas fucked up foreign policy.
I'm done responding to someone that unquestioningly justifies the intentional bombing of a 16 year old and an 8 year old US citizens. Because it was legal (It wasn't.)